Facts Worth Repeating

From Islam in Action:

Hezbollah Expected To Be A Major Threat By 2014

By David Bedein, Middle East Correspondent
Published:
Thursday, January 22, 2009

Jerusalem — Hezbollah could be one of the first security challenges faced by the new Obama administration.

An official government report concludes the Iranian-backed Islamic terror group has been forming sleeper cells throughout the United States that could become operational.

The report estimates Hezbollah could become a much more potent national security threat by 2014.

The group was responsible for the 1983 Beirut Marine Barracks bombing, which killed 241 U.S. Marines and 58 French servicemen.

“The Lebanese Shiite group Hezbollah does not have a known history of
fomenting attacks inside the U.S., but that could change if there is some
kind of ‘triggering’ event, the homeland assessment cautions,” the report
said.


The report, obtained by the Middle East Newsline and marked “for official use only,” did not define a “triggering
event.”

Most of the threats cited in the report had been raised by the
Homeland Security Department.

The 38-page report, titled 2008 Interagency Intelligence Committee on
Terrorism, said Hezbollah was being directed by the leadership in Lebanon as
well as Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC).

The assessment said the
Hezbollah network in the United States was engaged in money laundering, drug
trafficking, weapons smuggling and extortion.


The terror group has also established fundraising connections with mainstream American Muslim organizations, among the most notable being the case of Abdurahman Alamoudi, the former head of the American Muslim Council.

Mr. Alamoudi, prior to his having pleaded guilty in 2004 for having tried to launder Libyan money for various terror groups, actively worked to raise money for Hezbollah among others. He also formerly helped oversee the appointment of Islamic chaplains in the U.S. military.

Hezbollah is one of several terrorist threats to the United States
over the next five years, the report said. The report also cited al-Qaida as a
leading threat, saying the Islamic network was focusing on striking strategic U.S. facilities.


“The threat of terrorism and the threat of extremist ideologies has not
abated,” former Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said prior to leaving office yesterday. “This threat has not evaporated, and we can’t turn the page on it.”
#

'Welcome Fordson Class of 2012! Have You Embraced Islam?'

The report on how to improve Dearborn’s schools released last week by the Michigan Leadership Institute (MLI) focused its most serious criticisms on Fordson High School, specifically, its bad-tempered Principal, Imad Fadlallah.

To deflect attention from the troubled institution known locally as “Hezbollah High” and its spiritual leader, the Detroit News and the Dearborn Press & Guide both portrayed the report in a false light as nothing but a demand to banish Arabic from Dearborn schools.

As I wrote yesterday, none of the local coverage on the MLI report even mentions Fadlallah. But we did get to read comments from Imad Hamad explaining that the First Amendment protects the inalienable right of an immigrant from hearing anything at his local public school but his native language.

Unfortunately, anyone reading the MLI report for himself has to contend with its back-asswards style combining descriptions of serious problems with chipper language meant to say, “everybody’s doing their best!” and “we’re all winners here!”

For example, see how long it takes this writer to say “Imad Fadlallah has created a hellish workplace for his staff”:

The dynamics of Fordson are complicated at best. A significant number of the teaching staff, parents and students indicate a belief that the current Principal has the best interest of students at heart. Without question, he has many supporters who believe in and support the direction in which he has been taking the school. However, many of those staff who support the current Principal also point to areas where he needs to improve if he is to gain the support of the entire staff.

[BUT] For many staff, a culture of fear and uncertainty exists, and for them, we believe the work environment at Fordson has been in the recent past, and remains now, very hostile. . . .We believe that some staff has [sic] interpreted the Principal’s passion as anger—others do see this as a problem area or even a concern. [Emphasis added].

How's that for burying the lead? Rather than quote more of this unhelpful prose, I’ve tried to excavate the main problems the MLI report identifies:

--Fadlallah has created a culture of “fear and uncertainty,” and a “hostile” and “intimidating” work environment, for staff, students, and parents;

--There is distrust between various groups and individual staff members, divided along lines of their relationship with Fadlallah, so serious that “meaningful progress” will be “difficult at best”;

--Many Fordson support staff and administrators believe they’ve been treated by Fadlallah and his people “unfairly and/or unprofessionally”;

--If Fadlallah remains on as Principal, there are sure to be “additional complaints from staff” and, necessarily, “corresponding investigations of fact to be conducted”; [note use of plural];

--Fadlallah needs to be made to understand that his “former methods of ‘motivating’ staff” are unacceptable;

--Fadlallah needs a set of expectations imposed on him by the Superintendent—in writing—that he must follow; he also needs a coach—one not accountable to him;

--While everyone has seen improvements in Fadlallah’s behavior this year, credit for that goes solely to the presence of MSI monitors— everyone surveyed believes as soon as the monitors are gone, “the Principal will revert to prior behavioral approaches”;

--Fadlallah “needs to be seen in the hallways and classrooms more often” [except when he’s on Hezbollah missions in Southern Lebanon], and “[h]is appearance must be viewed as being supportive as opposed to being a threat” [exactly, just like when he’s on Hezbollah missions in Southern Lebanon].

--The “administration” (Fadlallah and his pets) also are seen by staff and students as employing blatant favoritism (“There is no room for special favors or exceptions!”);

--Fordson students routinely roam the halls during classtime, and security is so lax there’s no control over who comes into the building or leaves. This may be due, the report placidly suggests, to a “buddy” system between some students and security staff, a problem that "should be considered” because it “diminishes the possibility that the security staff can effectively assist with the control of the student population.” (Oh?).

Fadlallah was already in trouble last year for allegedly slapping a student, then applying "community" pressure to cover it up. Then there was the matter of his unlawful firing of wrestling coach Trey Hancock because of his Christianity ("Fordson Principal Pile Drives First Amendment"). Shortly after the Israel-Hezbollah war in 2006 Fadlallah abandoned his post to go help out his cousin in south Lebanon inventory Hezbollah's remaining rocket supply. In July 2008 the anti-religious outfit Americans United of Michigan documented how:

Numerous church and state allegations against Fordson’s principal, Imad Fadlallah, came pouring into AU-Michigan’s office in May and June. The allegations: a sign placed in the school library reading “Have You Embraced Islam?”; the school’s policy of serving exclusively halal food in the cafeteria; allegations of unreasonable religious accommodations granted to Muslim students and staff; discrimination against non-Muslim staff and students; discrimination against non-Shia Muslims; and the questionable termination of Fordson’s long-time wrestling coach.

[NOTE: The "Have You Embraced Islam?" poster was reportedly displayed prominently in the media center in Dearborn High as well.]

What are the chances that Fadlallah, no matter how bad a principal he is and how many civil rights and other laws he violates, remains on the job because the Dearborn School Board is terrified of crossing the Muslim community? And that Fadlallah sees his mission as ridding Fordson High School from the filthy influence of the infidels? (The report notes the "many of the traditions of the past have been discontinued (i.e. pep assemblies, honors recognitions programs, etc.)" ). And that the Muslim community already considers Fordson High an inalienable part of the Ummah?

As a case in point, consider the Victim Triumphant tone that the Arab American News used last summer reporting how Fadlallah was supposedly "found innocent" at a school board meeting of the charge that he'd slapped that student:

But there is a larger issue involved here and that is no less than the future of Fordson. The student who was the focus of the allegation never stated that he was slapped but did say that he was pressured by staff members to make the claim. And from the passionate testimonies of parents and students who showed up at the meeting in the hundreds to support Fadlallah, it became clear that an evangelistic effort is underway at Fordson, pitting a few of the staff and an outside group against the 90% Arab and Muslim student population.
("The fight for freedom at Fordson").

What is it exacty Fordson's 90% Muslim population needs to be "freed" from? And isn't someone attacking Islam all it takes to justify jihad?

Pre-emptive Grovelling

An interesting article from Times Online:

A festival of grovelling to terrorists

If works of art are withdrawn because of fear of reprisal, we lose the chance for open debate

Mick Hume

Have you heard about the first novel by a young American woman that has become the “new Satanic Verses”, sparking terrorist attacks on the publishers and riots by Islamic militants that make the protests against Salman Rushdie's book look like an English tea party?

No, you probably won't have, since there is no book for anybody to riot about. The US publishers Random House pulled The Jewel of Medina by Sherry Jones, due out today, on the ground that it “might be offensive to some in the Muslim community” and “could incite acts of violence by a small, radical segment”. An executive told the author that they had stopped her racy historical novel about Aisha, young wife of the Prophet Muhammad, out of “fear of a possible terrorist threat from extremist Muslims” and concern for “the safety and security of the Random House building and employees”.

There had been no acts of violence or terrorism, nor even threats or protests. All that happened was that one non-Muslim associate professor of Islamic history at the University of Texas, who was sent a proof copy, apparently cautioned that the book would be seen as “a declaration of war... explosive stuff... a national security issue” and more offensive than The Satanic Verses. There swiftly followed a riot of retreating publishers, and the book was blown out before anybody had the chance to set light to it for the cameras.

It looks like another example of a quiet wave of self-censorship and cultural cowardice sweeping Western art circles. Two years ago, when the Deutsche opera in Berlin scrapped a production of Mozart's Idomeneo for fear that it might offend some Muslims, I described it as “pre-emptive grovelling”. This now appears to be the modus operandi of the transatlantic arts elites.

It has just been reported that the BBC has dropped a big-budget docu-drama, The London Bombers. A team of journalists had spent months researching it in Beeston, Leeds, home of some of the 7/7 terrorists, and a top writer was preparing the final draft, when it was scrapped. The journalists were reportedly told by BBC executives that it was Islamophobic and offensive.

Last year, the New Culture Forum published a survey of similar cases, from the BBC hospital soap Casualty changing Muslim terrorists into animal rights activists, to the Barbican cutting out scenes from Tamburlaine the Great and the “cutting-edge” Royal Court Theatre cancelling an adaptation of Aristophanes' Lysistrata, both for fear that they might offend some Muslims.

The threat to freedom here does not come from a few Islamic radicals, but from the invertebrate liberals of the cultural establishment who have so lost faith in themselves that they will surrender their freedoms before anybody starts a fight. The mere suggestion of causing offence to some mob of imagined stereotypes is enough to have them scurrying for a bomb shelter, their creative imaginations blowing up small protests into the threat of a big culture war. Of course, such pre-emptive grovelling only encourages any zealot with a blog to demand even more censorship.

Who needs book burners if “offensive” books are not allowed to be published in the first place? Why bother to protest against provocative plays if the theatres will turn the lights off for you beforehand? There is no need even for a polite exchange on Points of View if the controversial programmes never get made.

The quality or lack of it in the self-censored works is not the issue here. That associate professor from Texas condemned the novel about Muhammad's wife as “soft porn”. But so what if it was? Free expression should mean freedom for what others see as filth, too. If there are artists childishly causing offence for its own sake, feel free to ignore them, but not to gag them.

Pre-emptive grovelling, encouraged from the top down by our illiberal authorities, is bad for the arts and for society. The arts can only flourish in a climate of cultural anarchy rather than compulsion and conformity. The attempt to limit what can be said must have a chilling effect, encouraging other writers and artists to pull in their horns.

Such self-censorship is also dangerous for those who don't much care about high culture. There is indeed a lesson from the Satanic Verses controversy, but not the one often cited. The dominant response to that clash of cultures was to try to bury it beneath worthy multicultural claptrap about celebrating difference. After more than 15 years of such attempts to suppress honest debate, the tensions festering beneath the surface exploded on the London transport system. As one female Muslim writer critical of the decision not to publish The Jewel of Medina says: “The series of events that torpedoed this novel are a window into how quickly fear stunts intelligent discourse about the Muslim world.”

As an old libertarian of the Left, who has long upheld the Right to Be Offensive, what makes me most angry today is to see fearful self-censorship and pre-emptive grovelling in the name of liberal values. That really is something worth intellectually rioting about.

A Rose By Any Other Name Would Still Be Haram

They keep coming up with more great reasons why people--well, male people, anyway--should become Muslims. Like there'd be no more coming up with lame excuses for forgetting Valentine’s Day, because it’s forbidden.

Saudis clamp down on valentines

Religious police in Saudi Arabia are banning the sale of Valentine's Day gifts including red roses, a local newspaper has reported.

The Saudi Gazette quoted shop workers as saying that officials had warned them to remove all red items including flowers and wrapping paper.

Black market prices for roses were already rising, the paper said.

Saudi authorities consider Valentine's Day, along with a host of other annual celebrations, as un-Islamic.

In addition to the prohibition on celebrating non-Islamic festivals, the authorities consider Valentine's Day as encouraging relations between men and women outside wedlock - punishable by law in the conservative kingdom.

The Saudi Gazette reported that some people placed orders with florists days or weeks before Valentine's Day in anticipation of the ban, which is a regular occurrence.

"Sometimes we deliver the bouquets in the middle of the night or early morning, to avoid suspicion," one florist said.

Others were planning to travel to the more religiously liberal neighbouring countries, Bahrain or the United Arab Emirates, to celebrate.

Saudi Arabian authorities impose a strict Islamic code that prevents men and women from mixing.

Story from BBC NEWS

One More Way Life Is Easier If You're Muslim

Hamas: We’re Allowed to Lie
2 Adar 5768, 08 February 08 02:36
by (IsraelNN.com)

Hamas leaders spoke to the Arabic language Ash-Sharq il-Awsat newspaper recently and explained that as Muslims, they are allowed to lie. In an interview printed on Thursday, senior Hamas terrorists explained, “A Muslim is permitted to say things that oppose his beliefs in order to prevent damages or to be saved from death.”

This approach, known in Arabic as “taqiyya,” was behind several Hamas leaders’ recent public expression of support for Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas, they explained. Senior Hamas terrorists in Samaria, who were recently released from jail, publicly expressed disapproval with the Hamas takeover of Gaza and said they supported the PA forces.

The sources quoted in Ash-Sharq il-Awsat explained that the Samarian terrorists’ announcement was not a sign of dissent within Hamas ranks, but rather a permitted use of “taqiyya” to deceive Abbas and avoid prison sentences.
#

But our enemies are clever. How do we know if there’s really no such thing as taqiyya, and that Hamas is just lying about it?

Berger/Clinton Foreign Policy: A Bridge to the Muslim World?

In the December 2007 issue of First Things, Father Richard John Neuhaus writes:

Remember the Kosovo War of 1996-1999? It turns out that, in the Albanian-dominated areas of the Balkans that had been conquered by the Ottoman Empire, there were, going back to the seventeenth century, thousands of Catholic Christians who nominally, “converted” to Islam but continued to practice their faith surreptitiously. Now these crypto-Catholics, as they are called, are out in the open and building, or rebuilding, the churches in their villages. For a long time, people visited priests secretly, and their baptisms were recorded in closely regard registries, since there were severe penalties for Muslims receiving Christian sacraments. This resurgence of Christianity is probably not what Sandy Berger, the national security adviser at the time, had in mind when, on May 7, 1996, he spoke to the American Muslim Council, assuring them that President Clinton’s policy in Kosovo was in support of building “a bridge between the United States and the Muslim world.” In the same speech, he said that international terrorism “is a problem many Americans mistakenly link to Islam.” I wouldn’t be surprised if Mr. Berger is still baffled by how many Americans continue to make that mistake. As recently reported, Mr. Berger, having put behind him the legal difficulties occasioned by his stealing classified documents, is foreign-policy adviser to Sen. Hillary Clinton.